Let m and n be coprime positive integers such that m ≥ n . Determine the number of ordered pairs of ( m , n ) such that m 2 + n 2 + m + n m 3 + n 3 is an integer.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Beautiful problem and solution. However, the main problem remains open.
Have you noticed that I'm Ghartal? :))
Log in to reply
Really? What a coincidence, hah. Probably noticed I almost directly copied what I added to the MSE post. Thanks for the fun problem :)
Log in to reply
No problem. Yeah I'm him :)) Ah, I see your edit to MSE post now. Thanks.
Log in to reply
@Kazem Sepehrinia – What what? Tell me what MSE post are you referencing, please! I'm so eager to know.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Hey Pi Han. This is it.
Log in to reply
@Kazem Sepehrinia – Yay! Ghartal is the best
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Haha.. :) Pi Han What's your name on MSE?
Log in to reply
@Kazem Sepehrinia – I rarely use MSE, but here's mine .
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
There is one solution, namely ( m , n ) = ( 3 , 1 ) . Let ( x , y ) = g cd ( x , y ) for simplicity. To show this assume ( m , n ) = 1 and the condition holds. We have that m 3 + n 3 ≡ ( m + n ) ( m 2 + n 2 − m n ) ≡ − ( m + n ) ( m + n + n m ) m o d m 2 + n 2 + m + n So the criteria is equivalent to m 2 + n 2 + m + n ( m + n ) ( m + n + n m ) ∈ Z ( 1 ) From here we have ( m 2 + n 2 + m + n , m + n ) = ( ( m + n ) 2 − 2 m n , m + n ) = ( m + n , 2 m n ) Going further using ( m , n ) = 1 we have that ( m + n , 2 m n ) = ( m + n , 2 ) . So ( 1 ) holds iff m 2 + n 2 + m + n ( m + n , 2 ) ⋅ ( m + n + m n ) ∈ Z Thus m 2 + n 2 + m + n ≤ ( m + n , 2 ) ⋅ ( m + n + m n ) . If ( m + n , 2 ) = 1 , the inequality doesn't hold. Thus ( m + n , 2 ) = 2 and m 2 + n 2 + m + n ∣ 2 ( m + n + n m ) Suppose m 2 + n 2 + m + n = 2 ( m + n + n m ) , then m 2 + n 2 + m + n ∣ 2 ( m + n + n m ) / p for some prime p . But this would imply m 2 + n 2 + m + n ≤ 2 ( m + n + n m ) / p ≤ m + n + n m which is false. Hence m 2 + n 2 + m + n = 2 ( m + n + n m ) and ( m − n ) 2 = m + n . This gives m − n ∣ n + m , so, also using m ≥ n , m − n = ( m − n , n + m ) = ( m + n , 2 m ) = ( m + n , 2 ) = 2 where the third equality comes from the Euclidean Algorithm, with the rest coming from ( m , n ) = 1 and the previous deduction about ( m + n , 2 ) = 2 . Finally we have m = n + 2 , which plugging into ( m − n ) 2 = n + m gives ( m , n ) = ( 3 , 1 ) , which we verify to satisfy the original criterion.